# Inter Governmental Committee - April 14, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 14, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/838 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/838?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-04-14 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 11,551 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council Inter-Governmental Committee met on April 14, 2009, at 1:00 P.M., with CM James presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking two votes and hearing ten public comments. The committee considered the following matters: a Construction Apprenticeship Program proposal, which was denied; an Oath for Commissions/Boards item, which was deferred; Grievance Procedures, also deferred; and an Update on Committee Items presented for informational purposes. Overall, the committee denied one proposal, deferred two items for future consideration, and received an informational update. ## Attendance **Present:** James, Crosbie, Beard, Henson, Feigel, Lawless, Martin, Myers, Blues, Stinnett **Absent:** Gray **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Disapprove Construction Apprenticeship Program Ordinance** [timestamp: 01:00:00] A motion to disapprove the proposed construction apprenticeship program ordinance was made by Crosbie and seconded by Myers. The motion failed by voice vote. Nine members voted in favor of disapproval: Crosbie, Myers, Beard, Henson, Feigel, Lawless, Martin, Blues, and Stinnett. No members voted against the motion. **Motion to Establish Subcommittee on Grievance Process** [timestamp: 01:14:20] A motion to establish a subcommittee to deal with the grievance process was made by Myers and seconded by Lawless. The motion passed by voice vote. Seven members voted in favor: Myers, Lawless, Beard, Henson, Feigel, Blues, and Stinnett. No members voted against the motion. ## Public Comment The meeting included ten speakers addressing a proposed construction apprenticeship program ordinance, with comments spanning approximately 45 minutes. **Opposition to the Ordinance** Richard Vincent, representing the Associated General Contractors of Kentucky, opposed the ordinance citing its 3% bid preference, arguing it would disadvantage small contractors operating on thin margins and harm regional competitiveness [00:15:06]. Billy Parsons, President of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Kentuckiana, argued that government-mandated apprenticeship programs interfere with free-market principles and would harm small and minority-owned businesses [00:19:26]. Warren Rogers, CEO of W. Rogers Company, warned the ordinance would place his firm at a 3% disadvantage when bidding in states like Tennessee and Alabama with reciprocal bid preference laws, potentially forcing relocation [00:25:47]. John Woodall, an attorney and contractor, emphasized that most construction workers live outside Fayette County due to affordable housing and cultural factors, making the proposed 25–33% local workforce requirement impractical [00:32:28]. Chad Harpole, Vice President of Public Policy for Commerce Lexington, argued the ordinance would deter workers from surrounding counties, particularly Jefferson County, from commuting to Fayette County, undermining regional cooperation [00:39:03]. **Support and Administrative Perspective** Robert Akin, representing the Central Kentucky Building Construction Trades Council, defended the ordinance as a voluntary incentive for workforce development, citing federal stimulus support and long-term benefits of trained local labor [00:41:47]. Brian Marcum, Director of Purchasing, noted that bid preferences can reduce competitive bidding environments and may eliminate bidders, though he did not offer a formal position on the ordinance [00:55:52]. **Council Member Comments** Crosbie explained her vote against the ordinance was based on preserving a level playing field, despite supporting labor and workforce development, citing economic vulnerability of construction firms during the recession [00:58:02]. Lawless expressed support for labor and training programs but questioned the specific wording of the ordinance, indicating a desire to understand how it could be improved [01:00:41]. ## Contested Items **Construction Apprenticeship Program Ordinance** The proposed Construction Apprenticeship Program Ordinance faced significant opposition during the meeting. Multiple construction trade associations and local contractors expressed strong concerns about the proposal. Their primary objections centered on the belief that the ordinance would create unfair competitive disadvantages for existing businesses and harm small contractors. Opponents also argued that the measure would negatively impact regional workforce mobility, potentially restricting the movement of workers across jurisdictional lines or creating barriers to employment flexibility within the construction industry. **Oath for Commissions/Boards** A procedural dispute emerged regarding the oath initiative for commissions and boards. The disagreement focused on whether this initiative should be combined with the financial disclosure subcommittee or kept as separate matters. Members advocating for separation argued that the two initiatives operated under differing legal frameworks and required distinct procedural considerations. This debate reflected concerns about conflating distinct governance requirements that might be better addressed through independent processes rather than a unified approach. ## Construction Apprenticeship Program The committee discussed a proposed ordinance that would grant a 3% bid preference to contractors employing apprentices from Fayette County [timestamp: 00:15:06]. **Positions and Arguments** Supporters of the measure argued that it would promote local workforce development and align with federal stimulus goals. However, multiple construction industry representatives opposed the ordinance, raising several concerns about its practical implementation and competitive impact. **Concerns Raised** Opponents cited the following issues: - Competitive disadvantages for contractors unable to meet the apprenticeship requirements - Impractical workforce requirements that would be difficult to fulfill - Negative regional impacts on the broader construction industry **Key Speakers** The discussion involved input from Richard Vincent, Billy Parsons, Warren Rogers, John Woodall, Chad Harpole, Robert Akin, Brian Marcum, and Crosbie. **Outcome** The committee voted to disapprove the ordinance. The motion to disapprove passed without dissent. ## Oath for Commissions/Boards [timestamp: 01:01:45] CM Beard proposed implementing oaths for board and commission members as a measure to enhance accountability. The proposal was prompted by concerns following an incident involving the airport board. **Discussion and Participants** The discussion involved CM Beard, Feigel, Myers, Blues, and Logan Askew. The conversation centered on the merits and implementation of requiring formal oaths for members serving on various city boards and commissions. **Outcome** The matter was deferred to a future meeting. The council agreed to form a subcommittee consisting of Beard and Feigel to develop the proposal further before bringing it back for full consideration. ## Grievance Procedures The committee discussed concerns about the current grievance process, referencing a recommendation from a Management Audit. [timestamp: 01:08:22] Key speakers in this discussion included James, Blues, Beard, Feigel, Myers, and Askew. The committee emphasized an important distinction during the discussion: the focus should remain on policy-level issues rather than individual grievances. This clarification helped frame the scope of the review. A motion was made to establish a subcommittee to evaluate the grievance process. The motion passed, and Diane Lawless was appointed as chair of this subcommittee. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, with the subcommittee now tasked with conducting the evaluation of the grievance procedures. ## Update on Committee Items [timestamp: 01:15:23] The committee reviewed pending items during this discussion, with Paul Schoninger and Myers serving as key speakers. No changes were made to the existing list of committee items. The committee confirmed an updated meeting date for the next Inter-Governmental Committee, scheduling it for the third Tuesday of May. The committee also noted that boards and commissions reporting and review of current boards would be revisited at the next meeting. This agenda item was informational in nature. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — failed: Motion to disapprove the proposed construction apprenticeship program ordinance - **Motion** — passed: Motion to establish a subcommittee to deal with the grievance process --- ## Full transcript Years ago, back on the back of a property line where there is an electric right-of-way, electricity right-of-way, and those trees over the course of years have grown up into, around, and through our lines. And there are residents who love those trees, love where they are, love the shade that they provide, and really would prefer not to have us trim those trees back sometimes to what appears to be a drastic level to make sure that the electricity is provided like it's supposed to be provided. From a homeowner's standpoint or a resident's standpoint, they should just know that when there's trees there that have limbs that are in the vicinity of our lines as they go back down through a series of backyards or whatever the setting may be. That's what we're charged with doing is clearing those lines and that we'll do it with the tender care that we can of the trees, knowing that you want that tree to live and you want that tree to grow and flourish and provide shade. Because that's one of the things that we say, you know, plant a tree and it will provide shade and cool your house down in the summertime in particular. if it's put in the right place. As the urban forester for the city, I work with a staff. We maintain all of the trees in our city parks. We also maintain the trees in our greenways and other publicly owned properties. We provide assistance to the public with recommendations for street trees, what species we recommend for planting. This area of town was planted with the aristocrat pear. There's probably a lot of aristocrat, Bradford, maybe even some Cleveland Select. Those are all in the same family. They're all calorie pears. They're very pretty in the spring, probably bloom for about two weeks. A lot of the more mature cow repairs in town as a result of the storms that we've had in the last decade have really been damaged to the point that we're seeing a lot of them actually removed now by the property owners. Silver maple was very popular back in the 50s. It was planted rather extensively in Lexington, either in people's front yards or used as a street tree. and we noticed that again in this last ice storm that there was a lot of problems associated with the silver maples. Now that the weather is warming up and people are able to get out and enjoy the nice spring-like temperatures, it's a good time to assess the damage of a tree. I think it's cost effective for the property owner to go ahead and have a tree that's, say, close to an overhead utility coming into their house. If that tree caused you problems, have the tree either pruned by a professional arborist, or you may want to think about going ahead and having the tree completely removed. If the tree has been very well maintained by the property owner, meaning that over time the tree has been pruned properly by an arborist or the property owner themselves, even if it's one of those pears or silver maples that they seem to have weathered the storm, the last two ice storms, a lot better than a tree that's neighboring that didn't receive any care at all from the property owner. basically when you prune a tree, people think that that's not good for a tree, but in an urban environment, you have to maintain trees. If you don't, then, well, we see what sort of results from that, especially if it's in the areas of overhead utilities. If property owners will maintain their trees, they'll be less susceptible to damage from big wind storms, thunderstorms, and ice storm events. One of the things that property owners, when choosing a tree service company, probably want to ask for is to find out if there's a certified arborist on their staff. They want to make sure that they're a registered contractor with the urban county government. They want to make sure that they have general liability insurance if they're doing a large tree removal. For a property owner, you may want to ask to see proof of general liability insurance. You want to make sure they've got workers' comp insurance for their employees. And also we would recommend that the property owner have a signed contract, and that's really to protect both you and the company in case something, an accident, were to happen on private property. What we don't want them to do is just arbitrarily take an ocean to get up and start trimming limbs around our lungs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go. We will begin the intergovernmental committee meeting for April the 14th. Please bear with us. The chamber is set up for the budget address, which will happen right at 3 o'clock. So the podium for use today, if you are interested in speaking on any particular issues, is where it always is. It's that podium right over there. And we'll just kind of go back and forth here, and I'll try to look around. if necessary, but if anyone's confused about where to be or whatever, you can just see Vicki here sitting over here in the clerk's position, or just wave your hand and we'll try to help you out. We have a sign-in sheet in the back for items on the agenda. There are three items on our agenda at this time, the construction apprenticeship program, the oath for commissions and boards, and the grievance procedure. And we will just begin with the construction apprenticeship program. This item was one discussed within the packet. You'll see the last meeting, and we talked about this on March the 10th. And we wanted to, I wanted to, as the chair, be sure that we were continuously updating and finding out what was going on as the conversation develops around the apprenticeship program. The last meeting, we presented a proposed ordinance, and it sparked a lot of conversation. And so we've gotten very recently, as of last night and today, lots of e-mails, and I know that there's been some meetings taking place. I'm guessing, Paul, procedurally, should we go by the list in the back from the very beginning? Okay. Okay. If committee members have anything they'd like to talk about before we hear from speakers, we can do that. But otherwise, we'll just get an update from, I know that Chad Harple is here from the chamber and has brought some folks in today. And anyone else that feels like that they would like to speak on this issue. I'm not expecting any legislation to be passed today and probably not anywhere in the near future because of the conversations that need to happen around getting this ordinance in any kind of working state. So we are looking forward to hearing from you and do encourage the conversation and encourage the continued communication about this ordinance. At this point, I have six signed in. John Hoagland if you would like to step forward if appropriate give your company name or your home address if you're here just on a as a personal advocate or whatever but your company name if appropriate I have no company name but I am John Hoagland and I live at 1729 Williamsburg Road And basically I would like to bring up a couple of things that I'm concerned with. Among the, it's basically with the grievance process. I spent 30 years with this government serving in two different areas. Sir. I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Hoagland. And the sign-in, the issue at hand at this moment is on the apprenticeship, and I wasn't aware that we had one sign-in sheet. But we will be getting to your issue next of the grievance process. My apologies. It's all right. I will just go down the list. If you don't mind having a seat. No, not at all. Thank you, and we'll call you up shortly. Richard Vincent, are you here to speak on the issue of the apprenticeship program? Wonderful. If you'll step to the mic and state your affiliation and what brings you here today. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Richard Vincent, and I'm the Executive Vice President of the Associated General Contractors of Kentucky. The AGC of Kentucky is a commercial construction association headquartered in Frankfurt. We have an office here in Lexington at 950 Contract Street. We were established in 1919. We represent commercial contractors, have roughly 700 general contractors, subcontractors, and industry associates across the state, and have over 200 of those member firms here in Fayette County. Our membership is representative of the industry in that we have union contractors, open shop, large contractors, primarily small, closely held companies that fight every day for their existence. I would like to begin by thanking you and the committee for consideration of ways in which to promote training and education workforce development. But I stand before you today to express AGC's opposition to this ordinance, which would grant a 3% bid preference to registered apprentices who have over 33% of their workers located within Fayette County. Our opposition is certainly not to the training as we support and promote investment in training programs, such as the ones you heard from last week and will hear from today. Our organization has had a longstanding and strong opposition to bid preferences in any form. As I'm sure you'll hear from other presenters, our industry survives or fails on razor-slim margins. nationally. Our general contractors rely upon margins of less than 2%. The ordinance we are proposing today provides for a 3% preference. This simply cannot be overcome in the market, particularly in the market that we're facing today. You'll hear today from local business owners and representatives on how this will impact their ability not only to obtain work here in Fayette County and in Lexington, but also abroad. There are broad implications potentially involved with this ordinance that I think the members of the committee should consider. And I believe that many of your questions that I've heard previously will be answered today as well. In closing, I'll leave you with this. On March 24th, our 25-member Board of Directors unanimously adopted a position of opposition to this ordinance. I have spoken with all of our Fayette County general contractors, and each of our general contractors is opposed. Now, I haven't spoken with every one of our specialty contractors. I have spoken with several, and I have yet to find an individual member firm who supports this measure. And, again, I think you'll hear more about that in just a few moments. Again, I thank you for your time, and I urge your opposition and defeat of this measure. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Vincent. Committee members, does anybody have a question of this speaker before we go to the next? Council Member Myers? Mr. Vincent? Mr. Vincent, you can come back up to the podium, please. I've got a question for you. Thank you. You raised several concerns when you spoke, and I was wondering if you could be a little more specific. You talked about the implications abroad, different reasons why your group is against or opposed to this ordinance. Could you be more specific? And I would be glad to expand a little bit. we do have someone that's following me in consideration of the committee's time. It may be to everyone's benefit to have them speak a little bit more specifically on some of the mirror preferences that we're seeing in other states and potentially some of the surrounding counties that are going to have potentially implications. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Billy Parsons, are you here to speak on this issue? My name is Billy Parsons. I'm the president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Kentuckiana. We are also a construction trades association located and headquartered in Louisville, but I have offices in Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green, Owensboro. We have about 500 members in our association. Somewhere around 75, 80 of those are in the Lexington area. What I wanted to speak to you on behalf of my association is that we are a free enterprise based philosophy company. That's what we believe in. The free market determines what goes on. We love apprenticeship training. We're the largest non-union apprenticeship program in the state of Kentucky. We have approximately 400 plus students in our apprenticeship programs that are in the construction trades. We have about close to 90, I think 90, between 90 and 92, something like that, in Lexington. They're involved in electrical training, pipe fitting, plumbing, HVAC trades. And we are also involved in continuing education training. We recertify and relicense electrical contractors and plumbing contractors each year. Somewhere around 1,000 of those come through our doors just in Lexington. We are involved in not only the apprenticeship training program, but also other continuing education classes, safety OSHA. All of those things are already out there. They're already available for the public. We also accredit 74 of the VOTEC schools across Kentucky. We also certify those instructors of those programs. In our apprenticeship program, first couple years are in theory, the second couple years are in basically specific components and modules of their specific trade. They get 152, 162 hours of classroom training per year along with on-the-job training hours. So we have a well-established apprenticeship program already in this area, but it's voluntary. It's not forced. You can be part of it. You don't have to be part of it, and that's one thing we believe in. We believe that it's up to an individual company to determine what their apprenticeship needs. If they need apprenticeship training or if they need additional training, they can provide that either internally or through associations like us. We're already there. We're already part of the program. And I do want to say that workforce development is the primary focus of our association and our industry. We believe that any kind of interference by government through legislation or ordinance is outside the realm of what is needed. because we're there, that's what we do, and that's our job. We're interested in the current training. We're interested in future training. So we're already involved in that workforce development. A couple of things I did want to clarify in listening to last month's meeting. There was a comment made that there is a similar ordinance in effect in Louisville. That is not true. I've been working on that ordinance for a good seven weeks now once it was originally proposed in committee. it's even worse than this ordinance, to tell you the truth. And I do want to let you know that everybody in business is lined against that ordinance. GLI, which is Greater Louisville, which is similar to Commerce Lexington. NABO, which is the Association of Women Business Owners. The Latin, Latino, and Hispanic business trades, they're involved in that. They're opposed to that ordinance. As well as ABC, and more importantly, ABBA, which is the African-American Business Alliance. And the reason all these are lined up against this kind of ordinance is that they know it will be devastating and it's detrimental to their business. It would be, there are situations that would occur if this ordinance were in effect that diminish the ability of a small company or of a minority-owned company to perform the work that they want to do. It would prevent them from being successful in the marketplace and that's why we and these other associations are opposed to this ordinance that is now being proposed. The Association of Builders and Contractors urges you to dismiss this kind of an ordinance. It's unnecessary. It's not needed. We already have the workforce training in place. It's out there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Any questions for Mr. Parsons by committee? Council Member Myers and then Council Member Blues. I think I'm going to have a rhetorical question. Mr. Parsons, could you be more specific? The last point that you made was that if this ordinance goes through, minority-owned businesses will be, it sounds like you're saying disadvantaged and have a tougher time competing and doing the work that they're trying to do. Can you be more specific on how this ordinance creates that situation? Well, I'll answer that on behalf of what I've heard them say, speaking for themselves. But small business operates on razor-thin margins anyway. Your most important asset to many small companies are your individual workforce. You have to utilize them as best you can. And when you put them in a situation like this and you start adding additional costs to them, maybe they only have two or three employees, and maybe they don't need apprenticeship training. Maybe they really need to work with that senior person in front of them, and that's what that company needs to get by. When you start adding additional responsibilities and paperwork and that kind of thing, it's tough on a small business to operate. Now, that's one of the things. Okay, so it sounds like what you're saying is that if this ordinance goes through, those small businesses will be required to send their employees through this apprenticeship program in order to be able to compete competitively for government jobs. Either that or add 3% to your bid. Okay. Which makes them even less competitive. Right. Thank you. Council Member Blues, that was your question. Okay, great. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thanks. Next on the list is Warren Rogers. Are you here to speak on this issue, Mr. Rogers? Wonderful. If you step to the mic. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman of the committee. My name is Warren Rogers. I live at 2417 Williamsburg Estates Lane. I am here speaking to you today as the president of W. Rogers Company. W. Rogers Company is a municipal utilities contracting firm established in Lexington in 1970. W. Rogers Company has completed dozens of contracts totaling tens of millions of dollars for the LFUCG. The company operates primarily throughout Kentucky and Tennessee and directly employs 230 people. W. Rogers Company strongly opposes the draft apprenticeship ordinance that was discussed at the March 10th meeting of this committee on the grounds that it unfairly limits competition and imposes unrealistic burdens on contractors who are currently investing in the training of their workforce every day. We are also longtime members of AGC and of ABC and of Commerce Lexington, all of whom, as you see here today, oppose this ordinance. After weeks of discussion, we have yet to find a local contractor, signatory or not, that supports this bid preference proposal. I feel like W. Rogers Company is very typical of these contractors. As you well know, many proposed ordinances, no matter how worthy they may sound, often have unintended consequences that sometimes are not known until the ordinance is passed. This ordinance and any ordinance with a bid preference has potentially devastating consequences for W. Rogers Company and all other Lexington-based firms that perform public work in other states. Several states, like Tennessee and Alabama, have no bid preference law except the reciprocal of any bid preferences that may be present where a bidding contractor is domiciled. Because my company is headquartered here in Lexington, should this ordinance become law, W. Rogers Company would immediately be disadvantaged by 3% when bidding against other contractors in those states. States pass these type laws to discourage cities like Lexington from passing noncompetitive bid preference laws like the ordinance before this committee. I, as the CEO of our company, have 230 families depending on me to make decisions that keep our company company growing and thriving. As an obligation to my employees, passage of this ordinance would require me to relocate W. Rogers Company across the county line in an adjoining jurisdiction to escape the 3% disadvantage that would be placed upon us if we remained domiciled in Lexington. Although none of my tradespeople live in Lexington, virtually all of the engineers, project managers, accountants, and clerical staff do live in Lexington. While not totally debilitating the urban county government, $3 million of professional payroll leaving our city would be contrary to the mission I know that this council has for Lexington. Some have said that this is only a 3% margin, and being a local contractor, we should be able to overcome that deficit. In reality, margins in the industry are far lower than perceived by the public. Industry statistics show that the net margins average less than 2%, as Mr. Vincent said. Our firm is currently experiencing the best year in our 40-year history. Our margins this year yet will not reach the 3% level. Being on the wrong side of a 3% bid preference will devastate W. Rogers' company. Finally, it was stated in the March 10th meeting that this ordinance is needed for the LFUCG to encourage companies to train their employees. Please understand that W. Rogers Company invests significant resources to train our employees in a myriad of skills and workplace tasks tailored to meet the specific needs of our employees and of our company. We do not utilize the very narrowly defined State Department of Labor approved apprenticeship training programs. These are not applicable to the trades we employ, nor have we found their graduates to be unusually skilled. We do not think that the relatively minor number of contractors that use this very specific form of training should be able to leverage that into a competitive bid preference that does not serve the best interest of the majority of local contractors, construction employees, the LFUCG, or the taxpayers. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this ordinance. I encourage you, on behalf of the employees of W. Rogers Company, to vote not to pass this out of committee. Thank you very much. I'd be happy to entertain some questions. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Any questions for this speaker? None indicated. Oh, hold on, Mr. Myers, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I get to ask the same question of everybody. In particular, you talked about, and we had a conversation earlier today, and you talked about where you're domiciled, where your business is domiciled, and how because you're domiciled here in Lexington, if this ordinance passes, it creates a disadvantage for you when you operate in other cities. Absolutely. Potentially Tennessee. Yes. Can you explain to us what you explained to me earlier so that everybody understands what you're saying there? Yeah, in the state of Alabama and the state of Tennessee, both have laws that say that they have no bid preferences but for the mirror of the bid preference wherever you may be domiciled. So if this council would pass this ordinance and allow a 3% bid preference, then my company would be at a 3% bid disadvantage when bidding work in the state of Tennessee or in the state of Alabama or any one of, I think, nine other states throughout the United States, these laws are passed in these jurisdictions really as a protection measure so that the companies that are domiciled in those states don't encounter a disadvantage when they go out of state to bid public work. Does that answer the question, hopefully? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Rogers? Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Thanks for coming in. Mr. Woodall, John Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for the opportunity to address you here briefly today on this issue. My name, once again, is John Woodall. I'm a lifelong resident of Lexington and attorney across the street and represent a number of area contractors, not the least of which is my own family, Woodall Construction. And I, too, am here today to speak in opposition to this ordinance. I don't want to replow the same ground. So what I'll focus on briefly is just the fact, the practicality or impracticality, if you will, of this ordinance. Like I said, I pretty well grew up in the construction business and spent a lot of time in it and worked for our company in high school and college and so forth. And the thing that jumped out at me or jumps out at me about this ordinance, ladies and gentlemen, is the requirement that a third or whatever the revised agreement is, 25 percent, so be it, provision in there that 25 percent or 33 percent of your labor come from Fayette County. Well, our labor and our company, and it's the same for other companies that I represent, they don't live in Fayette County. The majority of our labor pool comes from outlying areas, and the question then becomes, why is that? Well, all I can tell you is it's been that way for as long as I can remember. I can remember when I was in college and we were doing site work in the last section of Palomar Hills. We were eating lunch one day. My dad never would pay me enough to go out to lunch. always had baloney every day with the rest of the guys. And I actually asked that question one time of one of our people. Why in the world do you travel an hour and a half each way to come to work for us and then have to do the same thing every single day, sometimes six days a week? And the response was a couple different things. One, it's affordable housing. It just costs a heck of a lot more to live here in Lexington, anywhere in Lexington, than it does in several of the surrounding counties. Two, it's a cultural thing. Many people that work in the construction business, especially the iron side of the business, as I'll call it, for the Woodhaw Constructions and the Tuts and the ATSs and Allen Companies, folks like that, they grew up on farms operating heavy equipment, and that's where they initially got their training. And so it's not much of a jump to figure that they would land here where the work is. The other really, really important thing, if it's not for companies like ours, they don't have health insurance for their families. All of the reputable construction companies in this town supply health care coverage for their families. That's a very important thing, and they can't get that back at home. When I was younger, and I know it's still very much the same today, even with tobacco going the way it has. A lot of these folks still work at our business during the day, and they go home at night and they work on that farm, or they do the same thing on the weekends. It's just the way things have traditionally been. And the last reason is very much cultural. I had one of our guys tell me one time, I just don't want to look out my window and see another house. That's how a lot of folks feel. And it seems like the construction business seems to attract those sort of individuals. But as Mr. Rogers alluded, the only folks in our company that live here in Lexington, and I checked these numbers again this morning, and it's right on. About 25% of our employees actually live in Lexington, and they're the office personnel. They're the engineers, they're the estimators. But as a rule, equipment operators and laborers of other sources, they all live out of town. And it's that way in every single company. This is just, this was a, I think started out as a laudable goal. Let's do something to promote workforce development, but this is just a bad idea when you really analyze it. As a practical matter, it doesn't work. It's bad for business, and it's not something that needs to be legislated. And the other situation is, let's just put this into an analogy that you can, or an everyday situation you can understand. If an area contractor operating under this particular ordinance was ordered to go out and pave a road, well, you know, there's a certain number of people that go out and pave a road. I mean, you've got the paper operator, you've got the people that surround him, You've got the greater operator. You've got people driving trucks. You can't afford to put 25% of that workforce in apprentice status. Number one, it's dangerous. And number two, it just does not make economic sense. Nobody's lying to you here when they talk about razor-thin margins. Ask Vice Mayor Gray. He can tell you. It's a tough business. It's a very tough business, industry-wide. And you have to really know what you're doing and really, really watch your P's and Q's to make ends meet so that you can provide for your employees. I mean, we take it as our personal responsibility, and we're very proud of the fact that there's 100 people or at least 100 families in our business and 250 in Warrens depending on us for their survival, depending upon us for their health insurance coverage. We're serious about it. And that's why you're seeing people so emotional about this ordinance, because it's bad. And we would just ask you to do the right thing for us and for our city and let's get this thing off the tracks. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Woodall? No takers? Thank you for your time. I think the last name I have on the list is Parson, maybe? No? William Paxson, Parson? I can't read it. Oh, okay. Okay. Did you sign in twice? Okay. Oh, okay. Chad, I'm going to step forward. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Chad Harpole, Vice President of Public Policy of Commerce Lexington, and we represent 2,100 business members in central Kentucky and the surrounding region. And I don't want to reiterate what's already been said, but our executive committee has authorized our opposition to this piece of legislation. And two of the things I want to touch on, first off, is regional cooperation. One of the things that Commerce Lexington and LFUCG and the mayor's office, Bluegrass Add, Bluegrass Tomorrow have focused on is regional cooperation with Fayette County and the surrounding areas. This ordinance is viewed by those outside of Fayette County as an impediment to that. It greatly diminishes our workforce and our workforce's right to travel between Jessamine County and Fayette County. And when you look at the U.S. Census data from 2006, and you all will learn about this from our Economic Development Division, the second leading county for Fayette County's workforce as far as travel goes is not Jessamine County. It's not Scott County. It's not Madison County. It's Jefferson County. We have more folks traveling in from Louisville than we do Nicholasville to work in Fayette County. By legislating that 25, 33, whatever percent of the workforce be from Fayette County, that is going to send a black eye, as far as the message goes, to the rest of the region that their workforce, and particularly their construction workers, are not welcome in Fayette County. So that's why, in addition to the letter that we sent yesterday, that we feel like this is a bad piece of public policy and that it needs to go away. The second thing I want to talk about, and I'll just touch on this briefly, is LFECG Council and everyone else does not need to be legislating what kind of workforce development works for a particular company. BCTC, KCTCS, Fayette County Public Schools, particularly Fayette County Public Schools, has a program where students can enter VOTEC training with dual credit classes. And under this ordinance, that would not qualify for companies that are choosing that route for their employees because of the bid preference. So that's all I have to say. And, again, not to reiterate what was said earlier, but I appreciate you all's time. Thank you, Chad. I have a quick question. Do you know what the unemployment rate is in Fayette County? Right now, I believe it's around 8.1%. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Chad? Anything? Anyone else wish to speak? Did you, Mr. Aiken, did you, we have some, you want to tell us what you've given us today? My name is Robert Akin and I work for Kentucky Lessett and I'm also President of Central Kentucky Building Construction Trades Council. And I've got some handouts there for you. And basically it's just kind of an overview of apprenticeship and training in these areas and many of the, much of the information there come from websites from some of the people who spoke here today about their training programs and they do have good training programs and equal to anyone's. And apprenticeship and training, apprenticeship is part of all their programs. And if you look through there, there's several things. There's identifying that there's also the Kentucky Community and Technical College System recognized apprenticeship program. They work with several programs in that area and also veterans. That's one of the main things where veterans come out of the military. They have an opportunity to use their GI benefits to go to training programs at the community and technical college level as well as universities and some of those participate with the building trades as well as the individual entities that have their own apprenticeship programs. And also there's a little article called Helmets to Hard Hats which is a nationwide organization which goes out and provides information to veterans about training programs and things they can get into and helps them to move into those programs. And that's just something for your information, and you can look through that. And at the end of it, there is a flyer from the United States Department of Labor, and it basically gives you a lot of information and questions you may want answered about apprenticeship programs. And the brochure is registered apprenticeship tool for workforce and economic development for professionals. And I noticed here where several of the people who are opposed to this bill noticed that we had things such as It's a 3% increase on the cost of a project, that everyone's operating on razor-thin margins. It's up to individual companies to choose the training they want for their employees. A bad ordinance, devastating to business, hurts minority in small companies. We have some type of laws in other states that affect Kentucky. majority of the labor pool from out of other counties a mandated apprenticeship would make you put 25 or 30 percent of employees on a job in an apprenticeship program and that we have VOTEC training and stuff. We do have VOTEC training but it's apprenticeship is hands on as well as VOTEC and I'm a graduate of Central Kentucky VOTEC and went through an apprenticeship program out there So they are available out there, and there's ways to get in those. But if you read the ordinance, it doesn't mandate that anyone participate in the apprenticeship program. All it says is if your job that you're having bid reaches a threshold of $250,000, if you participate in the apprenticeship program, your bid will be looked at as though it was 3% less. Looked at. It doesn't say you cut your bid 3%. And there's some things there I think you really need to read before we go into adding cost to things. You don't have to participate. You still bid on projects. There's nothing that mandates you to have an apprenticeship program. And all we're trying to do is encourage this. And if you look in there, there's several things in there showing that there's a shortage of workers. And you need more workers from Fayette County living here that do more than just professional work here. Something can happen. I know it was announced yesterday there's a new plant going in Hardin County that's going to employ 2,000 people. That's going to change some of the dynamics in that area by a plant coming in, just as when Toyota settled in Georgetown, Kentucky, it changed a lot of the dynamics of the workforce in the area, people coming in, people commuting in. There's always a chance at a time down the road that something will happen through economic development or progress that's going to change your workforce dynamics in your community. And anything you can do to increase trained people in your community is good for your community. If you can do it without adding cost, that's wonderful. If you can do it through training, through employers, that's wonderful. If you can do it through tax incentives, that's wonderful. But you have to maintain a trained workforce. I know on Commerce Lexington's website, they are really involved in keeping people technically skilled and upgrading. So nobody here, I think, is against training or upgrading people's skills. It's just kind of a mode and means. This is just another tool to try to do that. And one thing I'd like to leave you with, you probably haven't taken time, but if you look at the 2009 American Stimulus and Economic Recovery Bill, which is 407 pages long, it's passed now, it's putting all the stimulus bill out in the economy across the nation. There's a lot of information about training programs and where the federal government is wanting to push people in the areas of training and upgrades and things like that. And this money is there for this community and stuff, too, to get into. But part of that is training and apprenticeship. And I think that through your staff or as a council as a whole, you may want to take a look at this bill and see some of these things. I know the mayor's office and staff are actively pursuing dollars for this community, which is great. And there's things in there, too, along these lines. And I'd just like to leave you with that, and I thank you for your time. Okay. What was that bill number again, the name of the bill? Oh, it's the American Economic – it's the stimulus bill, American Recovery and Economic Act of 2009. But as I say, it's 407 pages long. Okay. But if you'll take a look at it, your staff, there's some good information about where the federal government thinks we need to go in training programs and stuff for workers in this country. Okay. Is there anyone that has questions for Mr. Aiken specifically? was not for Councilman Myers, it was yours for Mr. Akin. Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. Akin, you mentioned a couple different things. Could you tell me a little bit about your apprenticeship program as far as what aspects of training does it offer? Okay. I represent 15 different training programs through Carpenters, PipeFit, different ones here in this area, and you're wanting some specific details about all of the training or just a general training program? Let me rephrase my question and maybe make it easier on you. If I own a company that does a specific type of construction, and this apprenticeship program that we're looking at in this ordinance is much more broad in its educational aspect, and my employees won't necessarily benefit from the training that they would receive in this apprenticeship program in order to do the job that I have them do. What's the advantage, or how do you see that that's not a disadvantage for me to have to send my employees to that program in order to bid competitively on jobs? Yes, sir, I understand. You don't send employees usually to an apprenticeship program that's been working for you eight or ten years. These are usually younger people or people entering the workforce, women or minorities. There's a lot of our apprenticeship program. And what they do, what basically apprenticeship is, is a combination of school, either on weekends or at night, and hands-on during the job training working under or around skilled craftsmen that will keep you safe and teach you the physical hands-on parts of the construction trade or whatever craft that you're involved in. And that's where the advantage is to it. If you don't have any interest in it within this bill, you don't have to participate. There's no mandatory participation in this program. Right. Okay, so let's move to that aspect of it. I understand that it's voluntary. You don't have to participate. But there's sort of a consequence to not participating, it seems. And that consequence seems to be that you mentioned earlier that it's not that I increase my bid by 3%, but it's that everybody else that's bidding against me gets to decrease theirs by 3%. So the net effect's the same on me. So I understand that you're saying it's a voluntary program, But if my employees don't need the training that's offered in the apprenticeship program to do the job that I have them do, so therefore I don't participate in that. And I may have a company that does a great deal of training for my employees, so it's not that I don't value training. But when I come to the table to bid on a job, my bid, in effect, has 3% tacked onto it because everybody else's gets 3% taken off. So how is that not a disadvantage? It would only be the ones that are participating in the program. That might be a slight disadvantage to you on that particular job if you use apprentices. But the thing about it is what you're gaining as a community as a whole is you're training more people and getting more qualified people. And if you don't have trained people in anything, you're going to have problems. Just as a doctor serves an internship, engineers serve internships, you have to have some training to maintain an industry. And if you're training your people on your own, that's fine. But the training programs that are through the federal government and the state of Kentucky have to follow specific guidelines to make sure your people are trained. I can say I'm training people, but what does that really mean? When you go through a registered apprenticeship program, you receive a certificate from the United States Department of Labor saying you are whatever you are, a journeyman carpenter, a journeyman plumber, and that gives you a portable skill also that you can take around to go to another employer and say, look, I've been trained, I have a paperwork. I can take people in here and give them safety training three days a week. There's lots of things you can do and call it training, and you can't speak to only the only the specific training for an individual contractor. Some contractors have fantastic in-house training programs and some aren't quite that way. As far as a disadvantage, it may be a slight disadvantage on one particular job to that particular bidder, but as a community as a whole, I think you come out ahead by training more people and people with these skills a lot of times will move into the realm of an employer down the road because they They understand more about their industry and the skills they take, and they have the craftsmanship. So there's some long-term benefits to maybe overcome some of the short-term things that you may be referring to. Okay, just one follow-up on that, and I appreciate that aspect of it. But the other side of that is if I go out of business because I can't get those jobs because of that 3%, then where do we end up? I don't know situation where there's an apprenticeship ordinance where people have went out of business over it. There is one in effect in Louisville. There is another bill that was referred to earlier that's in progress right now. Jefferson County has an apprenticeship ordinance. Ashland, Kentucky has an apprenticeship ordinance. Columbus, Ohio could name 50 cities around here. And if that was an issue, people going out of business over this, I think you would have heard about it a long time ago. I don't think anyone would come to you or try to do that if it was that big of a negative on the marketplace. So all the testimony we've heard today is kind of void. I'm not saying it's void, but I'm saying some of the facts are maybe not exactly what I would agree with, and I don't concur with a lot of the testimony that was presented here today. And I think some of the things that you can look at there about training and stuff and what the United States Department of Labor, the state, and other things, if these things were negative and bad, every state in the Union, even Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, all these states, they have apprenticeship and training programs of states. And the thing is, if you've got something and you don't utilize it, what good is it? If we don't train people and we don't encourage as a government the training and education of people, not only in professional trades, but also in the mechanical trades. And there's over, I think, 900 different apprenticeable programs, shifts, all different types of things for outside of construction. But if we don't take advantage of these things and push it, there's a big shortage of workers now. There's a big push on to have guest workers in this program, in this country, to bring workers in from other states. And a lot of that goes on. We need to grow our home-based workforce through training and stuff in every way we can. Of course, it's my opinion, but I think the facts, if you'll dig into them nationwide, will kind of back that up. The thing that I agree with most with what you said is that government's role is to encourage workforce development. I don't believe it's the government's role to legislate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Any questions for Mr. Akin? Council Member Crosby? Yes, thank you, Chair. I know that Anthony Wright couldn't be here today. He sent us a letter that he had to meet with a large delegation from China. I was just curious if there was anybody from the administration who could possibly let us know if they had an opinion on this since they were so visible last meeting. If there was anybody here, if there was. we actually our contact has been Anthony I do see Brian Markham from purchasing here I don't Brian I don't know if you're prepared or if you have a comment we weren't trying to make any legislative decisions today so it's we can wait to hear from Anthony but Brian's coming to the mic so maybe he has something to add I'm just trying to find out if their position is still the same regarding this the administration's position well obviously I can't speak on their behalf anytime that a preference is brought forth to our office we look at we try to validate it from both sides and I think obviously there's merits with this program we also try to look at it from the other side as well the competitive bidding environment that we deal with on a daily basis in our office So theoretically, any time you attach a preference to bids, typically it has the ability to eliminate bidders in that environment if they get defeated because of that preference. Reciprocating preferences that have already been touched on today by some of the contractors here from other municipalities or other entities. So really that's my perspective from a procurement bean counter position and the fact that it can somewhat tend to reduce our environment theoretically. Whether or not there's cases that show that, I haven't done any investigation on that. Thank you very much. I think based on the testimony we've heard today and our most recent speaker, I'm going to make a motion to disapprove this ordinance. So moved. Second. There's a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any discussion? What is the motion? Council Member Crosby, the motion was to disapprove the ordinance. Is that correct? Okay. To disapprove. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Is there any additional on this? Although it's off the table at this point, it can always be brought back at a later date. Is there any additional conversation regarding this? Thank you. May I? Yes. Chair? Okay. For just a second. Since I'm someone, is it okay, parliamentarian, to comment after? I'm the chair. Okay. That's right. Yeah, I'm the chair over here. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. I understand. There were a couple of references to my company and myself being in the construction business, and I thought it would be appropriate to explain a vote, even though it's already been taken. I'd like to. I'd like to put it into context very quickly. First off, I appreciate you guys who have come here representing labor. I learned a long time ago, actually, about 25 or 26 years ago, in the Toyota project out here, that there are two sides. In fact, my predecessor in this role as vice mayor, her name was Isabel Yates. And Ms. Yates likes to say that different points of view are sort of like a pancake. No matter how thin it is, there's always two sides. What in our own company over time went from being a really strong advocate for the open shop to having a very strong or a very compelling belief that America is founded on principles which include the labor movement. And I have myself migrated to some extent over time. In fact, today, much of our work and most of our work in our company is subcontracted, and we work with a lot of great construction companies who work with organized labor. And we found the work to be great. Now, the reason that my vote on this was against moving it forward had to do entirely with the evenness and levelness of a playing field. You guys do some great. In fact, I'd like to visit the training center. I told some of our guys this the other day, and I still believe that I'd like to have that invitation. In terms of where we are in our community today and in terms of where we are in the competitive world today, my sense is that not anybody here is unaware that construction is the second only to manufacturing in terms of jobs lost in this recession. and our ability to move forward is largely a function of our companies and those who are employed by our companies being able to continue to have jobs. So at this point in time, that's the reason for my vote. I wanted to explain it because it's hard for me to escape being in the industry and being in the business. I've learned that we have to speak out, and I appreciate everybody's point of view on this issue. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Council Member Lawless, your name is here. Did you want to speak? Yes, if it's okay for me to. I've always been a huge supporter of labor, but I also had problems with the way this is written and I'm not quite clear how. I'd like to talk to you more about it at some point, about how it will be helpful because I hear about the good training programs, et cetera. So that's what I have to say, and thank you, Mr. Akins. Thank you. Anything else from anyone? Any other comments or explanation or vote? All right. Thank you all for being here regarding this issue, and let us know how we can help you in the future. Hopefully we can all work together towards workforce development. Next issue on the agenda, we had for number two, oath for commissions and boards. Council Member Beard, let me know that we are not prepared at this time to have this on the agenda. Did you have any additional comment? We actually need to work with law a little bit more. The subcommittee does, which we intend to do in the next few weeks. But we should be ready by the next intergov meeting. So there's a committee that is, which committee is it that's working on it? You and Council Member Feigl? Okay. And Council Member Myers, just to update. All right. Yes. Can I touch on this? Yes. Did you have anything else, Council Member Beyer? No. Okay. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was wondering, we have another issue that I believe is in this committee where we're looking at the financial disclosure form. And we've taken a look at that, and the law department has batted it around a few times. What I'd like to do is see if we can't combine these two issues, because it has to do with the Ethics Act, just like what Councilman Beard is trying to do here. and wondered if we could just put those together. And we've got a couple other things. When Crittly Wellen was here, we had asked that she would take the recommendations that she had for the airport board and put those into a document that didn't speak to the airport board but spoke to boards and commissions and that we could use that as a tool to help train the boards and commission members that the mayor can appoint to and the council approves. I'd like to kind of bring that issue into this as well and just kind of tackle it all at one time. So that's the kind of direction I'd like to see us go on that. Do we procedurally, would that just be a suggestion, or should there be maybe a motion to combine the two, or is that something that the three of you are in agreement with? No, the first time I've heard about this, but I might say that the disclosure form, which I quite recently, like two hours ago, presented to the clerk's office, the legislation behind that, I think, goes a little bit further than just urban county government, is it not? Well, it goes to all the boards and commissions that, well, not all of them, but we're coming up with a list of boards and commissions that the mayor can appoint to that it would impact. So I presume it's the same group that you're talking about because your oath would be for any board and commission that the mayor can appoint to. That's correct. Are you speaking to the requesting agency and the reason for which the form needs to be complete? Yes, exactly. Okay. Did you understand that, Councilman Myers? Madam Chair, did I do that? Yes, you did. Excuse me. I know what Council Member Myers is talking about, but I really think that it would be better to keep those issues separate. I think the oath issue has a separate set of rules that are governing it. And on the ethics code, if we're going to make some changes there, Council Member Myers, we might want them. Now, if we're talking about incorporating what the auditor is going to have to say with boards and commissions, that's actually a slightly different issue, but I think it falls more with the ethics part of it. And it might be worthwhile, Madam Chair, to have maybe a subcommittee here work on that as well, a smaller group to kind of work on that, because we've been working on that for a while and kind of going around about how that needs to be revised. Okay. Madam Chairman, it would be nice to go ahead and get this laid to rest. time is obviously could be of the essence and it is relatively benign I've worked in that environment before as far as the oath is concerned and it's not onerous in any way shape or form as far as the people who are actually taking the oath and I'd like to go ahead and get that out of the way I do agree that maybe another subcommittee maybe could be formed to deal with the ethics issue. Okay. Is there anyone that would like to volunteer to be part of the Ethics Act Financial Disclosure Subcommittee? Okay. Council Member Beard? Oh, yeah. We're already working on the issue. I'd be more than happy to share it. Okay. Wonderful. So we've at least got two. Anyone else interested, please let me know. Okay. So we've got the same committee. Thank you. So when you're done with the oath, you can take care of the financial. And then we'll find something else for you to do. Okay. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. SEC reporting companies have a similar type of requirement for their directors and executive officers. And it goes down to second cousins. I mean, it's really in-depth of what you have to do to actually do the research to be accurate on that. But, again, the SEC is a tough taskmaster, and you have to go along with it. Okay. Are you chairing the Oath, the Committee on the Oath? Okay, so we'll have you as the chair for the Oath, and Council Member Myers as the chair for the financial disclosure. All right. Well, we look forward to the report out of that. Does the law department have anything to add about that? Okay. Our next item was on here for update. When Paul and I met, I did want to say that we wanted to get an update of anything. I wanted to get an update of anything that had gone on with the grievance procedure. And I don't know if everyone got the email. Commissioner Askew, you sent the email to everyone, right? So all council members and all committee members should have an email from council member or from Commissioner Askew related to some issues with the grievance process. And in your packet, Paul included that legislation that was proposed previously that didn't really even put it on for vote. It just was mentioned. And then there was a memorandum that came from Leslie Jarvis from Human Resources regarding the grievance process. And I've got a couple of ideas of how to proceed and want to just throw this out to the committee for suggestions. There's been some reference to some attention called back to the management partners audit and their recommendations for human resources. And one of the options we have is to have that Management Partners Audit Subcommittee, which I think is chaired by Council Member Crosby, to take a look at the human resources aspect and how it deals with being, I think there was a recommendation, something like human resources is not universally trusted by employees, and maybe dealing with it holistically, and maybe that would help us get to some of the issues. You should have probably received an email today related to the grievance process, and it may give you some ideas. For those of you who are wanting to know what's going on with the grievance process, it came at 1129 today, and it may give you some reference as to what's really going on from the employee perspective. So that's one recommendation is that we can have the Management Partners Audit Subcommittee take a look at the human resources recommendations listed there. Another is to bring us up to speed again on what the grievance process is. And there are some new committee members here. Maybe there's some new things that have come up in human resources and procedure. I'm not too sure. but maybe we need just a presentation again from human resources on what's going on. So I'm just interested in your feedback as a committee. Not too sure where to go. It doesn't seem like we're getting very far. So I need your help. Council Member Blues. Well, it seems to me that we've got, you know, to do however we do it, is to, you know, to identify the problem if there is a problem. and then to, that is to say, with the grievance process. So we look at the grievance process, get input, and if there is a problem, we should be able then to identify it and then to make recommendations on how to rectify it. It seems to me this is a job for a subcommittee to work through these kinds of this process. So, look at the grievance process, see if there is a problem, make recommendations on correcting the problem. Okay. Council Member Baird. I just wanted to, I would agree wholeheartedly with Council Member Blue's comments. I don't think that we need to get in the middle of specific issues of employees. And I think we need to look at the process and make sure that the process, actually the intent of the process and how it is executed may be two different things. But I do think that we need to look at the process. There is some smoke, and I think maybe when there's smoke, there's fire. And we just need to find that out. Okay. Council Member Feigl? Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a little comment. I do think this is a pretty slippery slope. If there truly is something wrong with the process, then I don't see any problem with us taking a look at the process. I'm very uncomfortable looking at individual grievance issues. I just feel like that's an administrative role. I don't believe that that's a council issue, just as we would not come between a police officer who's writing a citation for a citizen. I just feel like that's not our role to do. I don't have a problem looking with the process, but I do think that we need to get input from the top dog, which, according to our ordinance, is a CAO. So I think that we need to get input from everyone that's involved in all the way from step one to step four. I can't remember now what the steps were, but I think we need to get input from everyone along that path. But I think we need to be very careful about looking at it on a policy level and not from a very personal individual perspective. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Myers? Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I would go ahead and make the motion to put together a subcommittee to, I guess if you want to start with the management partners audit recommendations or at least their concerns that they listed and have that subcommittee look at those and then bring back recommendations to the full council. So moved. we've got a motion and a second to form a subcommittee to deal with the grievance issue any discussion or any questions I have the perfect recommendation or nomination for chair as well and who would that be council member Diane Lawless would you accept that position okay That sounds fine. We're just glad that somebody's volunteered to be a chair. Keep dreaming. And any other discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. And that passes. So we will have that subcommittee. If you all will let us know, just kind of inform us when you've planned your first meeting, and we'll spread the word. Next on our agenda is an update on committee items. Is there, Paul, is there anything we need to be aware of or any questions that you have as you're looking at the updated? Oh, what about we've changed the date of the next intergovernmental. Do you know what that date is right off? It's whatever the planning was. And I'll be honest with you off the top of my head, I think it's the third Tuesday rather than the second Tuesday of May. Well, just be aware that intergovernmental and planning have switched for the month of May. We had to do that for some scheduling needs. So if you have an issue that's within committee and you want to see that brought forward or if something comes up before then, we have a little bit shorter amount of time to get the information to Paul and get the research done. Council Member Myers, you have a question on that? Excuse me, not on that particular issue, but on other things that are on the list. Okay, please, go ahead. I see that a review of current boards and commissions and then boards and commissions reporting have been removed from the item list. Is that? I apologize. No, that was a question really I was going to want to raise to you, but. Okay. Yeah, that was. I think we got ready to try to report out and bring to a vote the boards and commission reporting. I think with new committee members, if we could just revisit both of these issues at the next meeting, I think we could wrap them up. Boards and commission reporting and review of current boards and commissions. Okay. And then, of course, we've already spoken on the issue of the boards and commissions to adhere to the ethics and financial disclosure form. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Any other updates? Committee items? We are done. Yes. We will get that information to you. Yeah. Thank you. Can I get a motion for adjournment? Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be there to comfort you Build my world and dreams around you I'm so glad that I found you I'll be there with a love so strong I'll be your strength I'll keep holding on. I'll be there to come from you Build my world and dreams around you I'm so glad I found you I'll be there when the love has gone I'll be your strength I'll give hold and all I'll give hold and all Just call my name, I'll be there I'll be there, I'll be there Just call my name, I'll be there I'll be there I'll be there I'll be there Just call my name I'll be there I'll be there I'll be there Just call my name I'll be there Don't you know, baby I'll be there I'll be there I'll be there Thank you. Smooth jazz is bumpin' Smooth jazz is bumpin' Smooth jazz is bumpin' I wake up to my radio Smooth sounds of my favorite show But myself is swept away Gonna help me make it through the day So cool that I will never miss Any sound so smooth like this A saxophone or a metal guitar You feel good no matter where you are Smooth jazz is pumping It's up with a smooth sound Smooth jazz is pumping Oh. So cool I will never miss When you sound so smooth like this Da-da-da-da-da-da Smooth jazz is poppin' Look where the smooth sounds And the players try to live for you Smooth jazz is poppin' There's no sound in the place of it Smooth jazz is bumpin' Built up with that smooth sound in the place of it Smooth jazz is bumpin' There's no sound in the place of it Not so long till you're out of reach Smooth sailing on the sunset beach And it's cool and you can't let go Smooth sailing on your radio Like a glass of marijuana Nothing better to make you feel fine Even you're done with yourself Smooth jazz will always be around Smooth jazz is bumping We'll be right back. Small Jackets is bumping. Small Jackets is bumping. Thank you. Hi Daddy, this is Noah. I just wanted to say that I got home safely and I wanted to ask if you would want to be the coach of my hockey team, the Mighty Ducks. And I love you. And I miss you, too. No, I already left you from today. Bye. Dad, I've got some braces. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. I'll stay strong, but I'll stay strong. guitar solo Thank you. I'll give you my all Till the stars fall from the sky I'll give you my all Till the stars fall from the sky Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you.